Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93703 Case Number: AD9419 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 280/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court does
not find grounds to justify alteration of the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation. Accordingly the Recommendation
stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93703 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1994
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 280/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. Campbell Catering Limited is involved in the contract-
catering industry. It provides on-site catering services to
clients.
The worker concerned commenced her employment with the Company as
a Housekeeper on 1st July, 1988, in Raheny House, a home for
retired Garda Siochana. Her hours of employment were as follows:
1st week 3 days 9.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.
2 days 11.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.
2nd week Including Sunday
2 days 9.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.
3 days 11.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.
In May 1993, Campbell Catering was notified by the client that
they intended to terminate the contract at the end of June, 1993.
The reason for the termination of the contract was the financial
situation of the Retirement Home. This necessitated the
implementation of cuts throughout all operations in order to make
the home operate on a break-even basis. Following discussions
with the client Campbell Catering entered into a revised agreement
with its client which reduced the level of service provided and
resulted in the loss of 3 jobs.
In June 1993, local-level discussions took place between parties
at which the worker concerned was offered alternative hours of
employment . The Company's offer was unacceptable to the worker.
The Union claims that the alternative employment would involve
changes in work practices and in hours of attendance. The Union
sought a redundancy package and submitted a claim for compensation
payments of 5 weeks pay per year of service plus statutory
entitlements. The Company rejected the Union's claim. The
Company's position is that no redundancy situation existed in
relation to the worker. The worker's employment was terminated on
4th August, 1993.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 29th November, 1993, the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:
"In the light of the above my Recommendation is that Campbell
Catering should pay to the worker the sum of #500 in addition
to her statutory entitlements under the Redundancy Payment
Act and this total sum be accepted by her in full and final
settlement of all claims on the employer in relation to her
employment and its termination."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the Labour Court on 24th December, 1993. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 18th February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned resides in the Raheny area. She
applied for the position in Raheny House because it suited
her domestic circumstances.
2. If the worker accepted the Company's offer of
alternative employment it would have a detrimental effect on
her home life.
3. The Rights Commissioner has acknowledged the
difficulties involved for the worker in taking up the offer
of alternative employment.
4. The worker's position was made redundant. In the
circumstances it is not unusual in the catering industry for
compensation payments to be made in excess of statutory
entitlements. The Labour Court has recommended ex-gratia
payments in similar circumstances in previous
recommendations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has no liability for redundancy payments in
respect of the worker. She was offered a number of
reasonable alternative positions.
2. Management acknowledge that the worker's hours were
changed in the unit in which she was employed. Every effort
was made at the time of the change to indicate to her that
Management would try and facilitate her with more suitable
hours in the future.
3. Management was not in a position to allow the worker to
take voluntary redundancy because of her insistence that she
be paid an ex-gratia payment in addition to her statutory
entitlements. She was advised that if she accepted statutory
entitlements she would be allowed leave in place of a junior
colleague.
4. The worker indicated that she was not interested in
alternative hours and requested her P45 on 4th August,1993.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court does
not find grounds to justify alteration of the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation. Accordingly the Recommendation
stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th March, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
F.B./M.M. _______________
Chairman